Skip to main content
Glama

Data Providence

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query

query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a Socrata SoQL query against a Providence Open Data dataset by resource_id (e.g. "vank-fyx9"). Filter with where/select/group/order (SoQL clauses, without the leading $) plus limit/offset. Returns matching rows as JSON.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupNoSoQL $group column(s).
limitNoMax rows (default Socrata 1000).
orderNoSoQL $order, e.g. "date DESC".
whereNoSoQL $where filter, e.g. "year >= 2020 AND status = 'Active'".
offsetNoPagination offset.
selectNoSoQL $select, e.g. "name, count(*) AS n".
resource_idYesDataset id, e.g. "vank-fyx9" (from datasets).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the nuance of SoQL clauses without leading $ and confirms return format as JSON, providing useful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first introduces purpose with example, second details parameters and output. No extraneous text; efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the core functionality, parameter usage, and return format. Could mention default limit (schema covers it) but otherwise complete for a query tool without output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds critical detail about omitting the '$' prefix in SoQL clauses, which is not in the schema, and clarifies the purpose of each parameter class.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it runs a SoQL query against a Socrata dataset, specifies the resource_id format, and lists the filter parameters. It distinguishes itself from the 'datasets' sibling tool which lists available datasets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for querying data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'datasets' for listing. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Data Providence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_kalshi_spread all hunt mispricings via different mechanisms, ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve tool discovery. The rich descriptions mitigate but do not eliminate misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and follow recognizable conventions: verb_noun for actions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, recent_*, ask_pipeworx_*), and a few bare verbs (remember, recall, query). Minor deviations like bet_research (noun_verb) and noun-only names (datasets, metadata) break the pattern, but the overall scheme is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and bundles several distinct domains — general data querying, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, open data, and npm auditing — into one server. The breadth is defensible for a data platform, but the agent-facing surface is sprawling and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The core data workflow is well covered: discover (discover_tools, suggest_questions), resolve (resolve_entity), query (ask_pipeworx), ground (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), research (deep_research), compare (compare_entities), profile (entity_profile), and changes (recent_changes). Prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions each have full lifecycles. The main gap is no tool for fetching returned pipeworx:// citation URIs directly, plus a few soft-failing sources.

Resources